This was a test using unassigned IP block, unless I'm reading it wrong. If a noc alerted on this it should have still be a low priority issue. I don't see any issues with the way this was carried out at all.
-jim
------Original Message------
From: Michienne Dixon
To: NANOG list
Subject: RE: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24
Sent: Jan 12, 2009 6:55 PM
But isn't this method kind of related to how an network from the
Mediterranean/Mid-east went about blocking what they felt was
undesirable/offensive content from entering their network?
-
Michienne Dixon
Network Administrator
liNKCity
312 Armour Rd.
North Kansas City, MO 64116
www.linkcity.org
(816) 412-7990
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:47 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24
On 09.01.13 07:42, Paul Stewart wrote:
> For us, it was annoying - we look for prefix hijackings or what appear
> to be.
i think herein lies the rub. it is not prefix hijacking and in no way
should it appear that way to you. i suggest tuning your detectors. i
am told that path poisoning is used (futilely, we hope to show) in day
to day ops by folk to try to avert dos attacks.
randy
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network